Wisconsin Freedom of Information CouncilWisconsin Freedom of Information Council: Safeguarding access state and local government and defending freedom of the press since 1978.http://wisfoic.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=63&Itemid=55
Tue, 20 Mar 2018 04:00:04 +0000Joomla! 1.5 - Open Source Content Managementen-gbMarch: Let the sunshine in!http://wisfoic.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=442:march-let-the-sunshine-in&catid=63:2018-columns&Itemid=55
http://wisfoic.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=442:march-let-the-sunshine-in&catid=63:2018-columns&Itemid=55

Let the sunshine in!

In my career as a journalist, I have encountered many public officials who respect government openness and transparency.

There was the state records custodian who turned over dozens of her boss’s embarrassing emails after telling him that keeping them secret would violate the law. And the university staffers who pointed me to public information the school tried to keep out of the public eye. And the local elected official who told me what happened in a closed session she thought may have been illegally closed.

As we approach this year’s annual celebration of Sunshine Week, March 11-17, it’s worth recalling times when people entrusted with our tax dollars have stood up for our right to know. But too often government agencies and elected officials pledge fidelity to openness while acting to keep us in the dark. Some recent examples:

The Madison Police Department failed, for more than a year, to deliver records to the Madison weekly Isthmus—even after the newspaper paid the department its requested fee. The liberal weekly and the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty teamed up to sue the department for dragging its feet, and the records were belatedly released. Wisconsin law says records must be provided “as soon as practicable and without delay” but doesn’t spell out how long is too long. More than a year is too long.

State lawmakers, relying on advice from the Assembly and Senate chief clerks, have refused to turn over electronic copies of emails, saying they will provide only printed copies. A judge has already ruled against one lawmaker, a Republican, who was sued over this practice, while another lawmaker, a Democrat, has just been sued.

The state’s bipartisan legislative leadership has denied requests for records related to allegations of sexual harassment in the Legislature on grounds that secrecy protects the victims. Of course, they could just black out victims’ names and still let the public judge the credibility of the allegations and the adequacy of the response, but have refused.

The Madison school district has been less than forthcoming about disturbing allegations against teachers. In one case, a middle school teacher was dismissed after a dispute with a student, but district officials refused to share details. It took a blog post by the Madison police chief to reveal that the teacher allegedly slapped the student. In another case, a high school has refused to share details on student allegations that led to a teacher’s sudden retirement —including whether its investigation substantiated the allegations.

Officials in Sauk County have taken numerous steps to block the public’s right to know. The local newspaper has filed a complaint over vague meeting agenda language that failed to make clear what was going to be discussed. The county also withheld information about health insurance proposals until after a committee decided which option to pick. And it skirted a law requiring the disclosure of finalists for key public jobs, for which it is now being sued.

Taken together, these cases provide a disturbing reminder that the public’s right to know is under constant attack—and that defending it requires constant vigilance.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council(www.wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Council member Mark Pitsch is an assistant city editor at the Wisconsin State Journal and president of the Madison chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists.

Computers have made examining government records easier than ever. The smallest townships across Wisconsin post the meeting agendas and minutes online. And websites for government agencies at all levels contain an enormous amount of other information.

Electronic records are also available on request. Say you want to see a skate-park-feasibility study you’ve heard about. You can request this record from the agency that keeps it, and receive it via email. The whole process can be completed in minutes.

In the past, such a request might have meant days of waiting for a paper copy with a per-page reproduction cost, as well as postage. A requester might have to first send a check to cover these costs.

Fulfilling requests in a digital fashion benefits both hard-working public employees and the curious public. It saves time and effort. The cost of reproduction is negligible.

There are other advantages in having a record in electronic form. Reading a 50-page paper study takes a long time, but it takes only seconds to search and find a particular phrase within a document on your computer.

And sometimes the paper copy doesn’t tell the whole story. The term “metadata” describes everything in an electronic document that doesn’t appear on a printed page. This may include, say, the name of the file, such as “Secret Meeting Agenda.docx.” Most files also contain the author’s name and information on when it was created and last modified.

In July 2016, the UW System officials refused to release their annual budget proposal, as they had in past years, claiming it had not been finalized. The proposal wasn’t distributed until 90 minutes before the Board of Regents met to take it up, eliminating any chance for public scrutiny. The metadata revealed that no changes had been made to this allegedly unfinished document since six days before the meeting.

Last month a Dane County judge ruled that Rep. Scott Krug (R-Nekoosa) should have supplied more than a thousand emails in digital form because the requester specifically asked for them in that format. Legislative staff had offered more than 1,500 pages of paper printouts for in-person review at an Assembly office, with copies available at 15 cents per page.

The requester who brought the suit was Bill Lueders, president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council. “The records were virtually unusable in the provided hard copy because they could not be searched,” the lawsuit said.

Lueders requested emails that Krug received from constituents on proposed changes to the state’s water laws. To properly fulfill this request, Krug’s office likely located the responsive emails using the search function within their email program, looking for particular phrases and bill numbers.

Shouldn’t we all have the benefit of this convenience? Providing records in piles of paper makes them less usable and requires requesters to physically travel to where the records are located to avoid paying for hundreds and even thousands of pages of copies. The Legislature’s policy discourages inquiry and prevents an easy examination of public information.

If you want records in electronic form, ask for them that way. And that’s how responsible officials will provide them—with or without the intervention of the courts.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council(www.wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. John Foust is a Council member and a computer consultant in Jefferson.

A resolution that passed 96-1 affirms that the Assembly “remains committed to our state’s open record and open government laws and policies, and will take all necessary steps to ensure that these laws and policies are preserved without modification or degradation.”

Fast-forward two-and-a-half years: Has the Assembly kept its promise? Here are some recent events to consider.

Among other reasons for withholding the documents, the clerks claimed disclosure would have a chilling effect on employees’ use of the Legislature’s internal complaint process. This position was backed by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) and Assembly Minority Leader Gordon Hintz (D-Oshkosh), who argued that releasing records in such cases could reveal the names of victims and witnesses, even when identifying information has been blacked out.

Viewed in the best possible light, these are not unreasonable concerns. But courts in Wisconsin have repeatedly affirmed that disclosing records about alleged misconduct by public officials and employees serves the public interest. And judges have found that victims and witnesses can be protected by redacting identifying information while disclosing the substance of what happened.

That same month, the Assembly passed a bill that blocks release of most police body camera footage. Only recordings depicting deaths, injuries, searches and arrests would be subject to release.

The measure further requires law enforcement agencies to deny requests for video recorded in places where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as inside homes, unless all witnesses, victims and property owners sign a waiver consenting to the video’s disclosure.

Open government advocates, including the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, believe the bill unnecessarily hampers access to body camera footage, which the public is paying for. Already, the law allows police to deny release of records when the harm from disclosure outweighs the public interest.

Separately, the Assembly is considering a bill that would seal court records about people wrongfully convicted. The measure, AB 548, effectively turns the public records law on its head by requiring that records be confidential unless a judge finds there is an overriding public interest in access to the documents.

While the aim of the bill is commendable—to help those exonerated rebuild their lives—sealing off all records about wrongful convictions goes too far. Access to such information is essential if the public has any chance at holding prosecutors, judges and the justice system accountable for wrongful prosecutions.

So, to review: The Legislature has refused to release records about personnel and sexual harassment investigations, advanced a bill to restrict access to body cam footage, and is considering legislation to seal off documents about wrongful convictions.

Has the Assembly kept its 2015 commitment to ensure the public records law is “preserved without modification or degradation?” You be the judge.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council(www.wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Council member Jonathan Anderson is a reporter for USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin.